Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

691–700 of 915 posts

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#691

Post by zozbot234 »

nl wrote: post #685
ttul wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do the math (I did), in 2 years, open source models that you can run on a future MacBook Pro will be as capable as the frontier cloud models are today. Memory bandwidth is growing rapidly, as is the die area dedicated to the neural cores. And all the while, we have the silicon getting more power efficient and increasingly dense (as it always does). These hardware improvements are coming along as the open sourc…

A Opus 4.7/Gpt5.5 class model is 5 trillion parameters[1]. To run a 8 bit quantized version of that you need roughly 5TB of RAM. Today that is around 18 NVidia B300. That's around $900,000, without including the computers to run them in. It's true that the capability of open source models is improving, but running actual frontier models on your MPB seems a way off. [1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/204212356166685523…

> A Opus 4.7/Gpt5.5 class model is 5 trillion parameters[1].

You could run it on a cluster of nodes that each do some mix of fetching parameters from disk and caching them in RAM. Use pipeline parallelism to minimize network bandwidth requirements given the huge size. Then time to first token may be a bit slow, but sustained inference should achieve enough throughput for a single user. That's a costly setup of course, but it doesn't cost $900k.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#692

Post by bigyabai »

mschuster91 wrote: post #675
wolvoleo wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow Apple has always been able to sell their stuff as somehow Magic. Remember the megahertz myth? Apple hertzes and apple bytes are much better than PC hertzes and bytes because they are made by virgin elves during a full moon.

> Apple hertzes and apple bytes are much better than PC hertzes and bytes because they are made by virgin elves during a full moon. The thing that Apple has always been excellent at is efficiency - even during the Intel era, MacBooks outclassed their Windows peers. Same CPU, same RAM, same disks, so it definitely wasn't the hardware, it was the software, that allowed Apple to pull much more real-world performance out…

> NV didn't want to give Apple the specs any more to write drivers.

I think that's a valid demand, considering Nvidia's budding commitment to CUDA and other GPGPU paradigms. Apple, backing OpenCL, would have every reason to break Nvidia's code and ship half-baked drivers. They did it with AMD's GPUs later down the line, pretending like Vulkan couldn't be implemented so they could promote Metal.

Apple wouldn't have made GeForce more efficient with their own firmware, they would have installed a Sword of Damocles over Nvidia's head.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#694

Post by nl »

zozbot234 wrote: post #691
nl wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Opus 4.7/Gpt5.5 class model is 5 trillion parameters[1]. To run a 8 bit quantized version of that you need roughly 5TB of RAM. Today that is around 18 NVidia B300. That's around $900,000, without including the computers to run them in. It's true that the capability of open source models is improving, but running actual frontier models on your MPB seems a way off. [1] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/204212356166685523…

> A Opus 4.7/Gpt5.5 class model is 5 trillion parameters[1]. You could run it on a cluster of nodes that each do some mix of fetching parameters from disk and caching them in RAM. Use pipeline parallelism to minimize network bandwidth requirements given the huge size. Then time to first token may be a bit slow, but sustained inference should achieve enough throughput for a single user. That's a costly setup of course…

> You could run it on a cluster of nodes

Not sure this is a MBP either.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#695

Post by sillysaurusx »

girvo wrote: post #618
sillysaurusx wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was once almost fired for saying a little too much in an HN comment about pentesting. Being dragged into an office and given a dressing-down for posting was quite traumatic. The central issue (or so they claimed) was that people might misconstrue my comment as representing the company I was at. So yeah, I don’t understand why people are making fun of this. It’s serious. On the other hand, they were so uptight that…

> On the other hand, they were so uptight that I’m not sure “opinions are my own” would have prevented it. In my experience it didn't matter at all, they considered "you work for us, its known you work for us, therefore your opinions reflect on us". Absolute nonsense, they don't pay me for 24 hours of the day. I told them where they can stick it (politely) and got a new job.

Good on you. I’m happy to hear you got out of that kind of environment. It’s soul-draining.

Also a relief to hear that other people had to deal with this nonsense. I was afraid the reaction would be “there’s no way that happened,” since at the time I could hardly believe it either.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#696

Post by goosejuice »

lxxpxlxxxx wrote: post #546
lesuorac wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not be…

Can anybody cut meta off? I don't think you could mass market a device with no access to FB, IG or WS. Maybe a niche product could do it, but good luck selling a laptop that won't open FB

No? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454647

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#697

Post by Dylan16807 »

csa wrote: post #489
PKop wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employer? That is what would need a disclaimer not the common case. Besides, he can put it one time in his profile, not over and over again in every comment like he does. There is no expectation that some random employee is a spokesperson for Google on tech message board comment threads. It's just a way to brag.

> Why would they be speaking on behalf of their employers? Disclaimers aren’t there for folks who are thinking and acting rationally. They are there for people who are thinking irrationally and/or manipulatively. There are (relatively speaking) a lot of these people. They can chew up a lot of time and resources over what amounts to nothing. Disclaimers like this can give a legal department the upper hand in cases lik…

Sounds like the company in the latter example really screwed up, but how does that connect to disclaimers? Is it just an example of malicious behavior?

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#698

Post by Dylan16807 »

lesuorac wrote: post #318
snek_case wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The metaverse is another example if anyone doubts the bounds of corporate stupidity.

Why? FaceBook largely requires an Apple iPhone, Apple computer, "Microsoft" computer, "Google" phone, or a "Google" computer to use it. At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]). The Metaverse was a long term goal to get people onto a device (Occulus) that Meta controlled. While I think an AR device is much more useful than VR; I'm not convinced that it's a mistake for Meta to peruse not be…

> At any point one of those companies could cut FaceBook off (ex. [1]).

Some of those companies can cut off invasive apps.

There is no risk of facebook.com getting blocked. And absolutely nobody is going to prefer a headset over a website for doing facebook things.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#699

Post by wolvoleo »

jiggawatts wrote: post #610
lokar wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see how you could care (a lot) about both the UI and reliability.

One is caused by the other. Amazons engineers decided to split the interface in a “user hostile” manner with the stated purpose of increasing reliability… which didn’t materialise. The clunky UI did. Or maybe you can provide a better explanation for why users had to “hunt” through hundreds(!) of product-region combinations to find that last lingering service they were getting billed $0.01 a month for? This just doesn…

One of the things I find about AWS is that every service UI feels different. It's like every service was designed by a totally different team.

For all its flaws at least Azure has consistent UI.

Re: Microsoft and OpenAI end their exclusive and revenue-sharing deal

#700

Post by Dylan16807 »

goosejuice wrote: post #696
lxxpxlxxxx wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anybody cut meta off? I don't think you could mass market a device with no access to FB, IG or WS. Maybe a niche product could do it, but good luck selling a laptop that won't open FB

No? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47454647

That's both niche and for kids too young to have a facebook account in the first place.
Post reply on HN